Goaltending

[kehatch]

Outside of JJ (who I think was ready to start Ortio 82-games next season without a back-up after Ortio played his second good game) I am not getting a good sense on what people expect the Flames to do next season.  We have one goalie signed to an NHL contract next season and Gilles isn't ready.  If the season was to start tomorrow we wouldn't have anyone in net.  

 

I look at the approach for each goalie differently.  Below is my list for addressing each position sorted by preference (reason it might not happen in brackets): 

 

Goalie 1: 

1. Find a young NHL ready goalie via trade that can be another option along with Goalie 2 (might not be available, might be too expensive to acquire)
2. Find an established NHL goalie in his mid to late 20s that can be a legitimate starter for no more then 3 seasons (might not be available, might be too expensive to acquire)
3. Sign Ramo to a short term deal - no longer then two years (may not be willing to sign a short term deal)
4. Acquire a veteran goalie on a short term deal - no longer then two years - via trade or free agency

Goalie 2: 

1. Sign Ortio to an extension - assuming he plays well for the rest of the season (may not play well for the rest of the season, may not be willing to sign)
2. Find a young NHL ready goalie to play 30 or so games (may not be available, may be to expensive)
3. Find a veteran back-up

It sounds like some of you are suggesting that finding goalie 1 isn't a requirement because of Ortio's play. Instead we should slot Ortio into that spot and get a cheap back-up for him to play with (or skip 1 and 2 and just go with Ramo).  It seems silly I need to remind people that Ortio lost his starting job in the AHL and has posted a sub 900 record in both leagues (Poulin has been much better in the same number of starts).  Ramo and Ortio BOTH cleared waivers this season.  Sounds like a sure thing to me!  I can't even imagine how quickly many of you will turn if we went that route and Ortio wasn't able to manage the starting job.  

 

I want Ortio to succeed.  But there is nothing stopping him from being successful with another goalie present.  There is plenty stopping the Flames from being successful if it is just Ortio present.  Personally I am way more concerned with the latter then I am with the former.  Giving an NHL starting job to an unproven goalie who hasn't been good this season = a TERRIBLE idea.  Not sure how that is possibly up for debate.  

[kehatch]

not now, but Quick was once seen as a backup behind Bernier . mentioned in trade talks quite frequently if i recall before he broke out . My only point was , if youre saying hes mediocre due to that style of his game, well, the point is moot cuz i can name an all star with the same tendencies who played 3 games his first season with an .855  and 44 the next season with a .915 and barely over  .500 (21-18)

basically , he evolved.. which is what Ive been saying this whole time.. we cant predict where Ortio will finish his career .. just for now that he's earned the right to take the next step.. which is NHL backup .. he has nothing left to prove as an AHL goalie

 

These types of posts are silly.  Not only is it full of error but even if taken at face value it doesn't actually say anything.  I can point to someone that won the lottery but it doesn't mean I quit my job (how many goalies on the other end of the spectrum didn't make it?)  

 

Quick making it means nothing for Ortio.  It doesn't change the facts that Ortio lost his AHL starting job, cleared waivers, and hasn't been good at either level.  It misrepresents the fact that LA actually kept both goalies until one earned the spot because they weren't willing to take an irresponsible gamble on just one of them. Ironically it shows Toronto's failure for gambling on an unproven starter with a Ramo level back-up plan.  

 

Your entire argument boils down to "its possible".  Which nobody disagrees with.  But "its possible" doesn't pay the rent.  "It" will be just as possible with another option in the house.  

 

I will agree that the Flames need to be responsible in acquiring the other option.  I am willing to pay a fair bit for the right option.  But paying too much for the right option or (worse) a desperate option isn't smart asset management.  Having a Ramo/Ortio plan B (or better yet plan D) is fine.  But it isn't the first avenue I would investigate.  The Flames need to see what else is available before they gamble on something like that.   

[travel_dude]

Kehatch - give me an idea of the goalies that qualify for Optio 1 and 2 for the starter position.  I'm not sure who qualifies for that 1st option.  Maybe Jake Allen, but he's 25+.  Andersen?  Again 25+.

[kehatch]

Kehatch - give me an idea of the goalies that qualify for Optio 1 and 2 for the starter position.  I'm not sure who qualifies for that 1st option.  Maybe Jake Allen, but he's 25+.  Andersen?  Again 25+.

 

I don't know.  Which is why I said they may not be available.  You listed two of the obvious ones (25 is pretty young in goalie years).  Markstrom might be in that boat as well, but I doubt Vancouver deals with us plus he is still pretty green.  Hammond and Kuemper might both be options as well.  

 

I am looking for a deal like when Buffalo picked up Lehner.  Something not super expensive but something that gives us a legitimate chance at finding a good young goalie.  I would like to have two bullets in the gun in case we misfire on Ortio.  

[travel_dude]

I don't know.  Which is why I said they may not be available.  You listed two of the obvious ones (25 is pretty young in goalie years).  Markstrom might be in that boat as well, but I doubt Vancouver deals with us plus he is still pretty green.  Hammond and Kuemper might both be options as well.  

 

I am looking for a deal like when Buffalo picked up Lehner.  Something not super expensive but something that gives us a legitimate chance at finding a good young goalie.  I would like to have two bullets in the gun in case we misfire on Ortio.  

 

I'm not super impressed with Hammond.  Jake Allen is a young enough guy with some good experience.  Other young guys are going to be as risky as picking up a career backup (but young) guy and promoting him to #1. 

 

The #2 option is a bit more safe.  You aren't getting an Over-the-Hiller goalie at age 28-30, which gives you more time to find the next one.  At worst, you have one guy capable for 5 years.  At best, you have two capable goalies that you can trade one of. 

[JTech780]

so If i understand you correctly ... hypothetically ..you'd be wiling to give up a 1st rounder and a prospect , to pay 6.5 M to a goalie for potentially one year . Cuz he makes 6.5 now.. hes gonna want a raise

if he doesn't do well enough to justify the raise, then that means he was a bust here.. so we gave up a first and prospect to let him walk for nothing or whatever we get as a rental

isnt this the guy that beat up his wife?

Bishop's salary and cap hit are actually $5.95m not $6.5m.

Varlamov was never charged with anything.

I'm not super impressed with Hammond. Jake Allen is a young enough guy with some good experience. Other young guys are going to be as risky as picking up a career backup (but young) guy and promoting him to #1.

The #2 option is a bit more safe. You aren't getting an Over-the-Hiller goalie at age 28-30, which gives you more time to find the next one. At worst, you have one guy capable for 5 years. At best, you have two capable goalies that you can trade one of.

I doubt Allen is made available by the Blues. They would move Elliot before moving Allen.

[travel_dude]

Bishop's salary and cap hit are actually $5.95m not $6.5m.

Varlamov was never charged with anything.

I doubt Allen is made available by the Blues. They would move Elliot before moving Allen.

 

That was a shopping list, not a realistic trade.  Elliott has had better stats, but Allen is promising and younger.  I could see them keeping both.  I would actually be happy with Elliott.  

[phoenix66]

These types of posts are silly.  Not only is it full of error but even if taken at face value it doesn't actually say anything.  I can point to someone that won the lottery but it doesn't mean I quit my job (how many goalies on the other end of the spectrum didn't make it?)  

 

Quick making it means nothing for Ortio.  It doesn't change the facts that Ortio lost his AHL starting job, cleared waivers, and hasn't been good at either level.  It misrepresents the fact that LA actually kept both goalies until one earned the spot because they weren't willing to take an irresponsible gamble on just one of them. Ironically it shows Toronto's failure for gambling on an unproven starter with a Ramo level back-up plan.  

 

Your entire argument boils down to "its possible".  Which nobody disagrees with.  But "its possible" doesn't pay the rent.  "It" will be just as possible with another option in the house.  

 

I will agree that the Flames need to be responsible in acquiring the other option.  I am willing to pay a fair bit for the right option.  But paying too much for the right option or (worse) a desperate option isn't smart asset management.  Having a Ramo/Ortio plan B (or better yet plan D) is fine.  But it isn't the first avenue I would investigate.  The Flames need to see what else is available before they gamble on something like that.   

 

no , my entire argument is that you need to evolve your prospects.. LA clearly did it right. Not saying at all that Ortio is Quick, just saying  Quick wasnt always Quick either.. 

and it ties in to my earlier post where I pointed out that trading for a "Clear #1" in this league, has failed more times than it has ever succeeded.

Not predicting anything for ortio.. he may bomb as a NHL backup and never get that next step.. he may evolve into a top flight starter.. just saying hes earned the right to take the next step , as opposed to cutting ties and starting over with another gamble

 

As far as our starter.. many options are available, I just merely said that success has been more common taking another that is ready for that next step , as opposed to gambling again that a goalie will have the same impact here they had for another club..and paying thru the nose for it.. especially at a time when there are more pressing needs to spend money on for the little impact it will have 

[kehatch]

I'm not super impressed with Hammond.  Jake Allen is a young enough guy with some good experience.  Other young guys are going to be as risky as picking up a career backup (but young) guy and promoting him to #1. 

 

The #2 option is a bit more safe.  You aren't getting an Over-the-Hiller goalie at age 28-30, which gives you more time to find the next one.  At worst, you have one guy capable for 5 years.  At best, you have two capable goalies that you can trade one of. 

 

Look back on a majority of the young goalie trades.  There were plenty of warts at the time of the trade.  A good chunk of them worked out.  The point isn't to find the perfect goalie.  If he exists then your probably not getting him.  I look at a guy like Kuemper.  He has 4 seasons of being an NHL back-up with 80-games over that time (Ortio has 25).  His SV% over that time is .912 (Ortio's is .897) and he is trending up (Ortio has been trending down for 3 seasons).  

 

I don't even know if he is available.  But he is the kind of guy that is knocking on the door for the starter position. If he can be had for a decent price I would take it.  

 

Granted I would rather have him with a more established goalie.  I would consider wiping the slate clean and going with something like Varlamov / Kuemper if we could.  That would give us a great set-up in net without blocking Gilles.  But Varlamov / Ortio or Kuemper / Ortio seems more practical IF Ortio plays well to finish the season.  

[phoenix66]

Bishop's salary and cap hit are actually $5.95m not $6.5m.

Varlamov was never charged with anything.

I doubt Allen is made available by the Blues. They would move Elliot before moving Allen.

off by 500K.. doesnt change the fact hes gonna want a raise and a term.. and we have no guarantees he will have the same success here

[kehatch]

no , my entire argument is that you need to evolve your prospects.. LA clearly did it right. Not saying at all that Ortio is Quick, just saying  Quick wasnt always Quick either.. 

and it ties in to my earlier post where I pointed out that trading for a "Clear #1" in this league, has failed more times than it has ever succeeded.

Not predicting anything for ortio.. he may bomb as a NHL backup and never get that next step.. he may evolve into a top flight starter.. just saying hes earned the right to take the next step , as opposed to cutting ties and starting over with another gamble

 

As far as our starter.. many options are available, I just merely said that success has been more common taking another that is ready for that next step , as opposed to gambling again that a goalie will have the same impact here they had for another club..and paying thru the nose for it.. especially at a time when there are more pressing needs to spend money on for the little impact it will have 

 

How many first round picks don't turn out?  It doesn't mean we stop selecting in the first round.  It should also improve your comfort in trading a couple of seconds (or something) for a goalie.  

 

You are correct though.  Trading for a goalie doesn't always work out. (Does a lot though, look how many starters were acquired via trade).  Just like developing a goalie doesn't always work out.  What we do know if failure to find a starter WILL derail the rebuild.  Which is why I want more options, not less.  Ortio AND XXXX is much better then Ortio and fingers crossed.  

 

I will disagree with one thing you implied.  The risk of Ortio not making it is much higher then the risk of a guy like Kuemper, Anderson, etc not making it.  Just look at the comparison between him and Kuemper above.  Would you trade for Ortio if he was on another team?  He wouldn't even be on our radar.  Most of us probably wouldn't even know his name.      

[travel_dude]

Look back on a majority of the young goalie trades.  There were plenty of warts at the time of the trade.  A good chunk of them worked out.  The point isn't to find the perfect goalie.  If he exists then your probably not getting him.  I look at a guy like Kuemper.  He has 4 seasons of being an NHL back-up with 80-games over that time (Ortio has 25).  His SV% over that time is .912 (Ortio's is .897) and he is trending up (Ortio has been trending down for 3 seasons).  

 

I don't even know if he is available.  But he is the kind of guy that is knocking on the door for the starter position. If he can be had for a decent price I would take it.  

 

Granted I would rather have him with a more established goalie.  I would consider wiping the slate clean and going with something like Varlamov / Kuemper if we could.  That would give us a great set-up in net without blocking Gilles.  But Varlamov / Ortio or Kuemper / Ortio seems more practical IF Ortio plays well to finish the season.  

 

Varly + ? would give us the next 3 years to develop a replacement.  Bishop + ? would be more expensive to acquire and is only signed for next season.  Elliott is one year remaining and due a raise.  Andersen is a pending RFA and due a raise.

[phoenix66]

How many first round picks don't turn out?  It doesn't mean we stop selecting in the first round.  It should also improve your comfort in trading a couple of seconds (or something) for a goalie.  

 

You are correct though.  Trading for a goalie doesn't always work out. (Does a lot though, look how many starters were acquired via trade).  Just like developing a goalie doesn't always work out.  What we do know if failure to find a starter WILL derail the rebuild.  Which is why I want more options, not less.  Ortio AND XXXX is much better then Ortio and fingers crossed.  

 

I will disagree with one thing you implied.  The risk of Ortio not making it is much higher then the risk of a guy like Kuemper, Anderson, etc not making it.  Just look at the comparison between him and Kuemper above.  Would you trade for Ortio if he was on another team?  He wouldn't even be on our radar.  Most of us probably wouldn't even know his name.

Now we're starting to get on the same page. You absolutely DO look at guys like Anderson, Kuemper, and the like. But as a growing team yiu look at them as starters. They're great examples of ones that have now outgrown their backuo or 1B roles and are about to becone too expensive to keep on their current clubs.

These are the ines you get successful with.

Yes, teams have traded for starters, but they typically werent starters with their previous clubs. Like I asked earlier, outside of Roy, Hasek and maybe Luongo..how established #1's have been traded and made a significant impact to their new clubs?

[darth_henning]

Outside of JJ (who I think was ready to start Ortio 82-games next season without a back-up after Ortio played his second good game) I am not getting a good sense on what people expect the Flames to do next season. ......

 

>SNIP<

 

I want Ortio to succeed.  But there is nothing stopping him from being successful with another goalie present.  There is plenty stopping the Flames from being successful if it is just Ortio present.  Personally I am way more concerned with the latter then I am with the former.  Giving an NHL starting job to an unproven goalie who hasn't been good this season = a TERRIBLE idea.  Not sure how that is possibly up for debate.  

 

The problem is both sides of the debate are trying to pose the other side's arguments as straw men. 

 

 

No one has said that we should just hand Ortio the starter's job (at least that I can tell). 

 

No one has said that they don't see any way Ortio ever plays in the NHL (one comment kinda did that I saw but for the most part). 

 

 

And they the poke holes in one of those two arguments to prove their own points on keepig Ortio or going after someone new. 

 

 

Realistically we have about 5 million to spend in goal next year unless we manage to off-load at least 1 or more of our veteran contracts, and use all that money on goal (assuming we don't go for a 1RW or other upgrade in the lineup). 

 

We will not be able to buy a Stanley Cup goaltender for that. A couple of posters here have said we should, and I don't quite know where they think that money comes from. 

 

 

So from that premise there's really only two realistic options. 

 

 

 

1) IF Ortio's performance collapses for the rest of the season, we go after a 4-mil #1 goaltender who can put up around league average numbers, and a 1-mil backup who can play 20-30 games. 

 

Play as appropriate next year. 

 

 

2) If Ortio's performance maintans where its been since callup (ie. around 93% most games with 2GA most nights and the occasional bad game) then we sign him to a 660-1mil one year contract, and go for the best 4-mil tender we can afford to fill out the goaltending position.

 

Next year we go with a 1A/1B rotation with an equal split of the games for the first 10 or 20. 

 

If Ortio can't maintain performance from this year, we relegate him to backup. If he CAN maintain the performance, then we start putting him onto the heavier workload and see if he might be capable of playing as a starter. 

 

 

 

I've seen several people claim on here that Ortio will never be more than a backup goaltender. And I raise my eyebrow at that. 

 

2013-14 Flames 0.891 2.51 GAA

2013-14 AHL 0.926 2.33 GAA

 

 

2014-15 Flames 0.908 2.52GAA

2014-15 AHL 0.912 2.69GAA

 

Misses most of the next year injured

 

2015-16 season start (2 games): 0.846 5.00 GAA

 

2015-16 since callup (5 games started): 0.9078 2.6GAA

 

 

His record since call-up is almost identical to his NHL record in 14-15 and his AHL numbers the two years before. Not really seeing the regression here other than 2 games to start this season in very questionable circumstances when the entire team was horrendous.

 

A 0.908 ties him with Ramo's season numbers, and is only a hair worse then Rinne this season. 

A 2.6 GAA puts him ahead of Ramo's season numbers and in the top 30. 

 

 

Should he simply be anointed the starter? God no. 

 

Should he be dismissed as someone who shouldn't be in goal for us in the nhl? That would be silly for a 24 year old goaltender who has played a total of 25 NHL games. 

 

 

He's an asset that currently is the level of a decent backup goaltender. He MIGHT be more than that, he MIGHT NOT. The only way to find out is to put him into the fire and see. 

[conundrumed]

Herein lies the problem.

We have serious goaltending issues. Dive headlong into the first solution, or take a step back?

For me, I don't want to make a panic move, what's the point?

It appears to me 3 top 6 wingers are missing, and I might be being generous. Lest, say, a Colborne for example. I don't know if it's just me, but he couldn't look off a used car salesman in favour of an early lunch.

Have you seen his odd-man rushes?

How about Bouma, Backlund, Frolik? Stajan? Ferland?

If we ain't scoring, Bishop/others isn't stealing us 30 wins, it ain't happening.

We might want to think about improvements that will help our goaltending.

Not jump on the first bus like a pain cry.

[kehatch]

Now we're starting to get on the same page. You absolutely DO look at guys like Anderson, Kuemper, and the like. But as a growing team yiu look at them as starters. They're great examples of ones that have now outgrown their backuo or 1B roles and are about to becone too expensive to keep on their current clubs.

These are the ines you get successful with.

Yes, teams have traded for starters, but they typically werent starters with their previous clubs. Like I asked earlier, outside of Roy, Hasek and maybe Luongo..how established #1's have been traded and made a significant impact to their new clubs?

Well this part we agree on. If those guys aren't available at a cost that makes sense though I have less confidence of going forward with a Ramo / Ortio tandem.

I do respect the debate of Ramo vs someone like Varlamov. Ramo costs you nothing where Varlamov will probably cost you at least a second round pick. Ramo will probably come in around 4.5x2 where Varlamov is 6x3. Ramo is a .910 goalie and Varlamov has been for parts of his career (including this season.)

But personally I think Varlamov is a much better goalie. At worst he is an adequate stop gap that buys us time to find a better option via development or trade. At best he has shown that he can be a high end starter in the NHL. He is only 27 years old.

Ramo is what he is. He is below mediocre who can jump between long spaces of good and terrible. If you go with Ramo and Ortio your really going with Ortio, at least in so far as the future goes. I want a lot more confidence that we have a credible goalie in our system going into the future.

Herein lies the problem.

We have serious goaltending issues. Dive headlong into the first solution, or take a step back?

For me, I don't want to make a panic move, what's the point?

It appears to me 3 top 6 wingers are missing, and I might be being generous. Lest, say, a Colborne for example. I don't know if it's just me, but he couldn't look off a used car salesman in favour of an early lunch.

Have you seen his odd-man rushes?

How about Bouma, Backlund, Frolik? Stajan? Ferland?

If we ain't scoring, Bishop/others isn't stealing us 30 wins, it ain't happening.

We might want to think about improvements that will help our goaltending.

Not jump on the first bus like a pain cry.

It's not an analogue game. You don't ignore a clear area of weakness while you work on upgrading in another area. Especially not for a position as crucial as goal.

Besides, it's not as doom and gloom as you make it out to be. We are looking good at centre and D and we have a couple of good pieces on wing. Fixing the bottom 2 / 6 and upgrading D are the easiest things to do.

[travel_dude]

All I know is that going with the same as we had this past season is a recipe for disaster.  Hiller is done.  Ramo might never return to being a viable goalie.  Ortio is a shot in the dark.  He should get the majority of starts the rest of the season to see what he can do.

He's going to lose at least half of them, since that is how we are right now.  That does not mean he won't get offered a deal.  He may or may not sign.

 

Ok, so we have a potential NHL backup.  That is all.  We would like him to succeed, so the best way is to bring him along slowly.  Put him in a position to succeed.  Pair him with a goalie with a winning record and some years experience.  Ortio is not likely to steal the job next season.  He could the following year, if he is really that good.  Or he could be replaced by Gillies.  We are probably looking at three years before we have a replacement to our starter.  That means we have to have one that can get this team a winning record for three years.  

 

So, we either pay now for somebody good, or we pay now for someone that may be good or have to be replaced sooner than three years.  Hiller brought some stability in his first year, but was not a long term solution.  Not even a two year solution.  I don't mind the team committing $6m to a goalie that can and will win.  

[jjgallow]

At the end of the day, we're having an off-season discussion about something during the regular season.

 

We don't have nearly enough information to know, yet.   And, yeah, It is affected heavily by Ortio's performance.  It just is.  Hartley had us believing there was something inherently wrong about him that made him not worth developing.  For the last two years.  And, when he's literally forced to play him, we're finding that's not the case.  Likely never was.

 

What's more, Jon Gillies post recovery performance may factor into it before this hockey season is over.  Or not.

 

 

I'm extremely grateful that there is a no-trade rule in effect right now, nullifying all the nutty and ill-informed ideas out there, including my own, and whatever management's are, lol.

 

We need to wait and see.

 

 

ps....in other news related to Hartley's long naughty list of prospects, Baertschi has three points in his last two games, all against San Jose, who we face on Monday.  Hopefully we have the same kind of success against them.

[conundrumed]

It's not an analogue game. You don't ignore a clear area of weakness while you work on upgrading in another area. Especially not for a position as crucial as goal.

Besides, it's not as doom and gloom as you make it out to be. We are looking good at centre and D and we have a couple of good pieces on wing. Fixing the bottom 2 / 6 and upgrading D are the easiest things to do.

Thanks for clearing that up for me lol.

I think what I actually mentioned was the lack of top 6 by, oh I don't know, 50%?

But goaltending is the hardcore #1 issue?

Like I said, let's take a step back and not panic.

It's a build, not a panic attack.

[jjgallow]

 

It's a build, not a panic attack.

 

Best Line Ever....

[kehatch]

Thanks for clearing that up for me lol.

I think what I actually mentioned was the lack of top 6 by, oh I don't know, 50%?

But goaltending is the hardcore #1 issue?

Like I said, let's take a step back and not panic.

It's a build, not a panic attack.

Our top 3 centres are Backlund, Monahan, and Bennett. Top 3 D are Brodie, Giordano, and Hamilton. Gaudreau is an elite winger. Frolik is a very good top 6 two way winger. That's a great start.

We have the worst goaltending in the league this season and it's likely the biggest difference between playoffs and bottom 3.

So why are we waiting to find a goalie? We need another RW or LW first?

[JTech780]

At the end of the day, we're having an off-season discussion about something during the regular season.

We don't have nearly enough information to know, yet. And, yeah, It is affected heavily by Ortio's performance. It just is. Hartley had us believing there was something inherently wrong about him that made him not worth developing. For the last two years. And, when he's literally forced to play him, we're finding that's not the case. Likely never was.

What's more, Jon Gillies post recovery performance may factor into it before this hockey season is over. Or not.

I'm extremely grateful that there is a no-trade rule in effect right now, nullifying all the nutty and ill-informed ideas out there, including my own, and whatever management's are, lol.

We need to wait and see.

ps....in other news related to Hartley's long naughty list of prospects, Baertschi has three points in his last two games, all against San Jose, who we face on Monday. Hopefully we have the same kind of success against them.

First off Gillies is done for the year, they are hoping he will be ready for development camp. He factors in as the starter in Stockton next year and quite possibly as the backup for Calgary in the event of an injury.

That is one position down.

McDonald is the other guy that could factor into this as he could be splitting time in Stockton with Gillies next year. I want both to start a ton so I would either put McDonald back in the Q or in the ECHL just to get starts more than anything.

Ortio, if signed has earned a chance as the back up for next year, I think most of not all of us can agree on this point.

So now we have the back up in Calgary, the starter and possibly the backup in Stockton.

I am curious what we do with Poulin, he could be really valuable depth for this team. He has shown he is a capable goalie at the AHL level and can give us a bit of a safety blanket for Stockton. The added bonus is that if there is an injury to someone at the NHL level he can come up and sit on the bench, while Gillies keeps developing at the AHL level. Having Gillies come up and sit on the bench does nothing for his development.

So the last thing we need is a starter for Calgary. This we can all agree on. What we don't agree on is how we go about filling that hole.

Some people are fine with the idea of missing the playoffs next year and gunning for another high draft pick. While others like myself see the way forward is to get a proven starter for the next few years and start helping our young learn how to win.

I think that pretty much sums up where we are to this point and I still don't understand the thought process of bringing in sub par goalies.

[jjgallow]

So why are we waiting to find a goalie? We need another RW or LW first?

 

I've been asking that question for 3 years now as we've refused to take goaltender development seriously for some time.

 

The bottom line, is that instead of developing goalies, we've gone with stop-gap measures.  Hiller, Ramo...and log-jammed our development stream doing it.

 

Now people are suggesting we do more of that.   Why?

 

If we can get a goalie who can win a cup....for a reasonable contract...let's do it.

 

Oh, but we can't.   Because teams don't just give up goalies like that.

 

It's about reality.

[JTech780]

Thanks for clearing that up for me lol.

I think what I actually mentioned was the lack of top 6 by, oh I don't know, 50%?

But goaltending is the hardcore #1 issue?

Like I said, let's take a step back and not panic.

It's a build, not a panic attack.

Goaltending is the most important position in the ice so yes it is absolutely 100% the hardcore number 1 issue. Wingers are the least important position on the ice.

[jjgallow]

I think that pretty much sums up where we are to this point and I still don't understand the thought process of bringing in sub par goalies.

 

Me neither.  But that's all you're going to get in a trade, and you'll pay through the nose for it.

 

It's not about tanking.  

 

It's as simple as this:  We need a Stanley Cup quality goalie.  

 

Nobody is going to give us one affordably.   We have to develop one.

 

Which means, we need to give them serious NHL minutes and actually develop them.

 

Bring in a veteran starter, they gobble the minutes....we're set back two more years.  It could literally kill our Stanley cup chances.

 

p.s...for the record, I'm not saying it's Ortio.  But hopefully, by the end of this season, we'll be able to answer that question intelligently.   I think we May need a goalie too.  Just a much younger one, with a much higher ceiling, than those listed here so far.